Nimrod families take legal action

[welshwizard]

Am I being really naive here or am I about to say something that other people seem to be avoiding?
When at least 5 people on this thread have included in their replies "I don't see what can be gained by this new private legal action".
Dear God, no one else has said it out right, but I will bet my next month's pay most of us are thinking it.......COMPENSATION, LEGAL FEES, COURT COSTS, TRAVEL EXPENSES, HOTEL BILLS.......in one word guys.....MONEY!
That is what will be gained by it. As LQ and one or two others have rightly said, there is no magical single person to blame for this terrible accident, but as soon as the coroner said that 'someone' was to blame (The MOD)......... those hearse chasing vultures jumped on the gravy train, with pound signs in their eyes and as usual started banging on about our dear old 'Human Rights' friend. How may times a year do we all hear in the media;
".........it's not about the money, we just don't want this to happen again".
Feel free to call me a cynical old devil, but when these people start donating their out of court settlements to charity, maybe then I will lighten up a bit.
Grrrrrr.
WW

 

[seahaven]

I won't be posting on this thread again nor shall I be moderating it as I am finding it increasingly difficult to maintain objectivity. If this post is out of order please would a fellow mod pull it.

I'm not sure how my post can be remotely considered out of order.

I acknowledge not all families support the action taken. I have no personal stake in this but simply feel that the thrust of my post is all factual and in the public domain. The problems in the MoD affect all aircraft - they won't go away if Nimrod is "fixed" (whatever that may entail). The utter drivel coming out of MoD about remedial action being in place by the end of this year is both unrealistic and completely ignores the fact that they (the RAF Support Management system) were told what needed remedying about 15 years ago.

The point about the self same failures being raised in previous accident reports is crucial here. Perhaps if someone had pressed as hard as some Nimrod families after those accidents, then Nimrod may never have happened. In saying this, I of course acknowledge that they should not have to press, that the regulations should be routinely implemented properly, but the irrefutable evidence shows that senior MoD officials/officers and politicians aren't going to do it for us!!

My apologies if I have offended anyone.

 

[vim_fuego]

Definition of Compensation from Princeton's wordnet:

-something (such as money) given or received as payment or reparation (as for a service or loss or injury)

Spot on Welshwizard...It's about money now.

 

[seahaven]

As LQ and one or two others have rightly said, there is no magical single person to blame for this terrible accident, but as soon as the coroner said that 'someone' was to blame (The MOD).........

Perhaps not, and the MoD make darn sure no-one tries to find out. But, the simple fact is that airworthiness (not safety, serviceability or fitness for purpose) is regulated by one Joint Service Publication. The responsibility for airworthiness rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland and Defence (which is why it was he who admitted liability).

The system is managed by letters of delegation which flow down through staffs who are actually qualified to manage airworthiness. In practice, this delegation almost immediately splits into two parts, managing airworthiness before Introduction to Service, and after. (Reflecting two different chapters in the JSP). On a day to day basis, most in the RAF (and RN, Army) are served by the latter. The procedures to be used in implementing the regulations are clearly laid down in a series of Defence Standards but, in practice, senior staffs and politicians deny those at the coal face the necessary resources. All at Kinloss will recognise this. The regulations state that if this is the case, the onus is on the coal face (or whoever) to elevate the risk through management. The evidence shows this was done, to 2 Stars and up to Ministerial level.

My admittedly simplistic view is that if 2 Stars in both systems, and their bosses, have been warned many times over the years that they are not fulfilling their legal airworthiness obligations, then the list of those responsible is very small indeed. I hope the QC’s Review very quickly focuses on this area.

 

[Past Engineering]

Seahaven: What you are saying is quite correct and has been done to the limits of human exasperation on the Pprune thread, but the way you are writing comes across as if you not only believe that these court actions are good, but that naively that they will make any difference what so ever to the MOD safety/airworthiness or for that matter more money to 'fix' the problems on this and other aircraft will be come available.

The money that the MOD has to spend on all this will detriment all other areas of the military, putting more lives at risk than will be saved by implementing further safety measures. Your comment about if other families who have lost loved ones in other accidents had pressed as hard as the Nimrod ones have done, that it may have stopped the Nimrod one from happening is also naive, the Hercules families did a similiar 'campaign' as did some other with bullet proof vests and ground vehicles and IFF etc.

I also was not going to add anything further to the thread, but just felt the need to answer Seahavens input, as this thread is in danger of becoming an extension of the Pprune thread so it should be closed to allow families who are in this forum to be given some peace.

 

[laboratoryqueen]

Perhaps not, and the MoD make darn sure no-one tries to find out. But, the simple fact is that airworthiness (not safety, serviceability or fitness for purpose) is regulated by one Joint Service Publication. The responsibility for airworthiness rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland and Defence (which is why it was he who admitted liability).

The system is managed by letters of delegation which flow down through staffs who are actually qualified to manage airworthiness. In practice, this delegation almost immediately splits into two parts, managing airworthiness before Introduction to Service, and after. (Reflecting two different chapters in the JSP). On a day to day basis, most in the RAF (and RN, Army) are served by the latter. The procedures to be used in implementing the regulations are clearly laid down in a series of Defence Standards but, in practice, senior staffs and politicians deny those at the coal face the necessary resources. All at Kinloss will recognise this. The regulations state that if this is the case, the onus is on the coal face (or whoever) to elevate the risk through management. The evidence shows this was done, to 2 Stars and up to Ministerial level.

My admittedly simplistic view is that if 2 Stars in both systems, and their bosses, have been warned many times over the years that they are not fulfilling their legal airworthiness obligations, then the list of those responsible is very small indeed. I hope the QC’s Review very quickly focuses on this area.

You mention the QC's review, it's actually quite an indepth investigation covering a diverse range of policies, procedures and potential failings, something which is expected to take up to two years to complete. What can possibly be brought up in private legal action which will give any further answers to the families, which will give any further justice than what will be picked up by the review.

You and many others here are well aware that I do have an interest in the goings on surrounding the Nimrod, that interest has always been to know she is deemed safe. Not just by the paper pushers but by those who fly her themselves and above all by the ones who carry out the work on the ground. I'd rather listen to the guys on the ground than any policy or any document.

The dangers of taking this legal action will only highlight any compensation awarded. Yes there was a statement that this is not about compensation, I'm sorry but it appears to have gone that way. If it were about justice, there is the QC's investigation ongoing, why have the findings of that not been awaited, there was the coroners verdict, which was very damning, there was the findings of the BoI, again damning towards the MoD. We have had MoD accept liability, we have had IPTL accept liability we have had BAe accept liability, we have had an abundance of acceptance in responsibility towards this, we have had as much justice as is possible.

To take this further knowing full well there will never be an outcome which completely satisfies, will never give an individual to stand and say yes it was all me, all this will do is cost the MoD more in it's legal fight and yes it would be expected there to also be an award of compensation. It becomes all about money and that ultimately takes more money away from where it is needed, in keeping our guys safe.

 

[vim_fuego]

The Nimrods are going to continue flying until their OSD with crews on board who willingly walk up the steps...Being one who initially fixed then flew on them for years (until 2003) I can state without hesitation that the crews aren't droids who climb on board because they are told to but sensiant beings who make up their own minds...The option for posting away is available as is the PVR button...The WSOp trade is at 96% manning which in comparison to some is very healthy and there are few gaps (for WSOp's) if any up North at this present time...I was on a course at Cranwell just lately with two of the new breed of operators who have flown on CXX throughout this period and they weren't aware of the huge thread on Prune or of the fuss that is being created by their self appointed guardians...They also had a few choice words about some of the people now involved in this legal push which to me speaks volumes about what the crews may be thinking these days...

The point I'm making here is that the thread on Prune and now this one is becoming populated with people who think they know best...Some, perhaps many, have never flown on the aircraft but still bang on about air worthiness and ALARP as if they are the guardians of all on maritime...What both these threads have lacking are honest inputs from the people who sit on the Nimrod on a weekly basis at home and over hostile territory...How they are getting on with whatever job is thrown their way whilst certain parties are hell bent on grounding the fleet, pointing the finger, getting compensation and assuming the crews have no opinion or influence on their position...

One things for sure...If this goes to court and certain parties win a suitcase load of cash the people collecting will have to live with knowing what a lot of us are thinking...I hope it makes them happier and allows them to put this all to bed...But I doubt it.

 

[dodgysootie]

The Nimrods are going to continue flying until their OSD with crews on board who willingly walk up the steps...Being one who initially fixed then flew on them for years (until 2003) I can state without hesitation that the crews aren't droids who climb on board because they are told to but sensiant beings who make up their own minds...The option for posting away is available as is the PVR button...The WSOp trade is at 96% manning which in comparison to some is very healthy and there are few gaps (for WSOp's) if any up North at this present time...I was on a course at Cranwell just lately with two of the new breed of operators who have flown on CXX throughout this period and they weren't aware of the huge thread on Prune or of the fuss that is being created by their self appointed guardians...They also had a few choice words about some of the people now involved in this legal push which to me speaks volumes about what the crews may be thinking these days...

The point I'm making here is that the thread on Prune and now this one is becoming populated with people who think they know best...Some, perhaps many, have never flown on the aircraft but still bang on about air worthiness and ALARP as if they are the guardians of all on maritime...What both these threads have lacking are honest inputs from the people who sit on the Nimrod on a weekly basis at home and over hostile territory...How they are getting on with whatever job is thrown their way whilst certain parties are hell bent on grounding the fleet, pointing the finger, getting compensation and assuming the crews have no opinion or influence on their position...

One things for sure...If this goes to court and certain parties win a suitcase load of cash the people collecting will have to live with knowing what a lot of us are thinking...I hope it makes them happier and allows them to put this all to bed...But I doubt it.

Absolutely spot on Vim, well said mate.
DS

 

[laboratoryqueen]

The Nimrods are going to continue flying until their OSD with crews on board who willingly walk up the steps...Being one who initially fixed then flew on them for years (until 2003) I can state without hesitation that the crews aren't droids who climb on board because they are told to but sensiant beings who make up their own minds...

Darn right Vim.

The crews have choice. Steve flew on the Nimrod for about a decade, he was on 201 Sqn for a while leaving them to go to 42 as an instructor, he went onto 120 Sqn as he wanted to return to flying and to do what he was trained for. He was to take captaincy of crew 10 when he got home but he died before he got the chance.

Steve made his choices, no one made them for him. Everytime Steve walked on that plane he did so of his free will, he went on to do his job. Everything he did, he did by choice as do those who still walk on and do their jobs. He fully intended to continue flying her.

This should have ended with the verdict at inquest, the boys should have then been allowed to rest in peace, Haddon-Cave has taken the mantle of investigation and should be allowed to do so in whichever way he deems fit. Those who continue to work with the Nimrod should be allowed to work without constant questions of whether the fleet is safe or not. This is only damaging their morale.

 

[seahaven]

Past Engineering

Seahaven: What you are saying is quite correct and has been done to the limits of human exasperation on the Pprune thread, but the way you are writing comes across as if you not only believe that these court actions are good, but that naively that they will make any difference what so ever to the MOD safety/airworthiness or for that matter more money to 'fix' the problems on this and other aircraft will be come available.

The money that the MOD has to spend on all this will detriment all other areas of the military, putting more lives at risk than will be saved by implementing further safety measures. Your comment about if other families who have lost loved ones in other accidents had pressed as hard as the Nimrod ones have done, that it may have stopped the Nimrod one from happening is also naive, the Hercules families did a similiar 'campaign' as did some other with bullet proof vests and ground vehicles and IFF etc.

Yes, what you say about pprune seems true. An awful lot a people diverting attention from the main issue. I wonder at their motives. Something to hide?

I need not comment on my thoughts about the court action. An emotive and deeply personal subject, and simply none of my business. I think it should be between the families to discuss and each “side” should respect the other. I find speculation about financial motive distasteful. Did this not come up on pprune a while back, only for the poster to be banned?

Any money spent on this may or may not be to the Forces’ detriment but, on balance, I think it wisely spent. It certainly pales into insignificance compared to the sinful waste on Nimrod RMPA fiasco, currently running at something north of £1.5M per week. Even a QC doesn't get paid that.


I don’t think this Nimrod case stands direct comparison with the Hercules one although, ultimately, the issues are the same. While robustly run, the Hercules campaign focused on one technological solution to one risk on the aircraft, ESF. It did not focus on the root cause, the failure to implement regulations. Neither did Nimrod (and please correct me if I’m wrong) until a representative of the families waved the “A” word JSP at the Coroner, who asked the MoD why he hadn’t been given a copy. “Didn’t think it relevant” or something similar was the reply. I’m sure there is more in the detail, but no wonder the Coroner got uptight with MoD. Airworthiness regulations are irrelevant! I understand the Hercules inquest is to reconvene in a few months. I think the focus may shift slightly, as a result of the Nimrod case.

Lab Queen – I am utterly horrified if your estimation of 2 years is correct. A disgrace. But you ask what could emerge from court proceedings that the Review will not address. Quite a lot I imagine, given the MoD’s propensity for withholding “irrelevant” material.

 

[laboratoryqueen]

Lab Queen – I am utterly horrified if your estimation of 2 years is correct. A disgrace. But you ask what could emerge from court proceedings that the Review will not address. Quite a lot I imagine, given the MoD’s propensity for withholding “irrelevant” material.

The scale is not my estimation, it is the time scale stated to the families to expect the investigation to take. I would, if it were to follow the original assumption of a matter of months, be more worried in that respect as I could not see how such a thorough review of so many factors could be completed with the utmost attention to finer details.

Given that the entire investigation is to review all those points which have already been mentioned with regards to possible reasons for private legal action, I do see this as being pointless.

Yes there were delays in documentation requested of the MoD but I doubt very much they would be more forthcoming in that respect to any legal action, the Haddon-Cave investigation however will have more power to have information disclosed, so with that in mind, I would say that if this is solely about finding justice for the deaths, finding cause for their deaths and prevention of further deaths, Haddon-Cave QC is the best chance of that.

 

[laboratoryqueen]

Stepping out of the what is best for the fleet, the guys or anything RAF related for a moment and just wearing my little family member hat so looking at this from that angle and that alone.

Taking legal action is going to be detrimental in the long term for those who are involved in that course and for the others who get dragged along the tracks behind. Because we are all linked by the deaths, when action such as this is taken, all become involved whether they want to be or not as it involves the same event which killed our men.

My own personal view and on a perosnal note as to why I think this is being done is simple. The need to have a singular person to blame for the deaths is overwhelming and the anger at the loss of loved ones can be all consuming. Because there is no individual to hold accountable and the only ones we have who have can take responsibility are faceless compainies, there has not been the chance to dispel that anger, frustration or grief. The acceptance and the belief that this has happened is a difficult thing to find.

The inquest gave some people a hope that finally they would have someone stand in the box and at last have the finger pointed at them, a face given to the cause for all this pain, a reason why. Because this didn't happen it has left, in some, more anger, more frustration and all the grief they feel is channelled into those emotions. The need to fight and continue the search for the one responsible becomes almost an obsession, it is all which compells you get up each morning, the deaths become your life and with that you think of the death before their lives.

When does it end? There can never be an end which is the one wanted as there will never be an individual to stand there, not because they are being hidden but simply because there isn't one. There are things such as chains of command, various compainies merged with that who make decisions as a group never singular.

It is anger, it is frustration, it is pain, it is not being able to deal with the grief and the loss, it is being unable to accept and to believe they are dead. A futile search for the one who is to blame only prolongs that which is inevitable, grief, and it will make it harder to accept.

What is at risk here, aside from the emotional, physical and phychological, is that any action will award, as a point of course, a compensation allowance. The simple fact of money will alter any intention towards highlighting safety of the fleet and safety of the crews and will push that to the background, then it will be seen as being a long road to make someone pay.

Let the boys sleep.

 

[Roobsta]

The lineys would have not let it fly if they were concerneed about the saftey, and even an AMM LAC has the right to stop it flying if he is unhappy about something.

Sorry to correct you - he has no right to stop it - it's the pilots aircraft as soon as he signs for it (as I was told after protesting loudly that they went against my advice). You can't stop him/her taking a jet if he/she is hell bent on going. All you can do is regster your feelings with the management as a big umbrella. I wish I'd triple chocked the tw@t and just walked away.

 

[laboratoryqueen]

Sorry to correct you - he has no right to stop it - it's the pilots aircraft as soon as he signs for it (as I was told after protesting loudly that they went against my advice). You can't stop him/her taking a jet if he/she is hell bent on going. All you can do is regster your feelings with the management as a big umbrella. I wish I'd triple chocked the tw@t and just walked away.

Just a little point, thought it was the captain that signed for it.

Captain isn't always the pilot.

 

[sausage2]

Sorry to correct you - he has no right to stop it - it's the pilots aircraft as soon as he signs for it (as I was told after protesting loudly that they went against my advice). You can't stop him/her taking a jet if he/she is hell bent on going. All you can do is regster your feelings with the management as a big umbrella. I wish I'd triple chocked the tw@t and just walked away.

I did not say after the captain had signed for it, before the aircrew have got their mits on it, if a AMM LAC raises a Job card in the F700 , then the aircraft is U/S and not allowed to fly until the card is cleared. FACT. So Like i said any liney has the right to stop an aircraft flying if he feels it is unsafe. FACT

 

[vim_fuego]

Just a little point, thought it was the captain that signed for it.

Captain isn't always the pilot.

Depends what aircraft...Nims are a little odd in the fact that a person sat down the back without even a window to look at could be the captain...There are pilot captains obviously...It just depends who on the sqn has all the ticks in the boxes and is next in line...All the other big stuff as far as I'm aware have pilot captains...

 

[laboratoryqueen]

Depends what aircraft...Nims are a little odd in the fact that a person sat down the back without even a window to look at could be the captain...There are pilot captains obviously...It just depends who on the sqn has all the ticks in the boxes and is next in line...All the other big stuff as far as I'm aware have pilot captains...

Thanks Vim

I do admit that when I was told Steve was being made captain, I'd always assumed pilot was captain, I did say but you're Nav.

 

[MAINJAFAD]

Sorry to correct you - he has no right to stop it - it's the pilots aircraft as soon as he signs for it (as I was told after protesting loudly that they went against my advice). You can't stop him/her taking a jet if he/she is hell bent on going. All you can do is regster your feelings with the management as a big umbrella. I wish I'd triple chocked the tw@t and just walked away.

And what was the EngO's take on the matter???

 

[welshwizard]

LabQueen - may I firstly say that after reading your posts on this thread, you are possibly the most honest, straight-talking, realistic goater on here.
You are obviously closely involved with the subject we are all talking about and I respect your views enormously.

SeaHaven - your comment about The Secretary for Scotland and Defence 'admitting liability' in this case made me laugh out loud if you don't mind me saying.

How many politicians have we all heard say;

".....I accept full responsibility for what has happened"

and then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else comes of it.

Are you seriously trying to imply that these further court proceedings will actualy result in DB standing in a witness box and saying on record;

"Yes, it was my fault those 14 servicemen died"?

Dear God, what planet are you on?

I also found your comment on

".......speculation about financial motive being distasteful" rather naive.

If this investigation and further court case continues for another 2 years (as has been suggested) who on earth do you think will be paying all the legal bills for the families? Have you ever heard the term NO WIN - NO FEE my friend?
WW

 

[seahaven]

Welsh Wizard

I am saddened by your scornful tone. Please save it for those who have caused this.

Instead of criticising or ridiculing the simple facts that I mentioned, or casting aspersions on some families, why not make a constructive suggestion how to fix a “system” which permits and encourages people to ignore the airworthiness regulations.

I dare say the Secretary of State had an ulterior motive (mainly, diverting attention from other more serious failures and hoping we don’t realise that Nimrod is the tip of an expensive iceberg as far as airworthiness is concerned) but if he ever did a half decent thing in his life it was saying what he did in December last year. I believe his admission unique. He has opened Pandora’s Box and if the Government don’t fund the solution they will be hoisted by their own petard.

The problem I have with the mooted two year Review (when it was originally announced it was to be a few months) is that yet another generation will have completed two year tours and what little knowledge there is will have been further watered down. And the Government will probably have changed. In my opinion the QC could have got to the root of this in weeks, but I admit I share your view that I think he will be hindered by those whose remit is to obstruct. The fact that little has been said or done in 7 months probably indicates that, as usual, MoD have offered carefully briefed stonewallers to him.

Didn’t notice anyone comment on my note about the wastage rate on RMPA. Someone PM’d to say my figure was on the low side. You only have to glance at those colourful MoD wallcharts we receive every few months to get a very good idea where to start any investigation. Then ask, what influence do those posts have on implementation of airworthiness regulations. Common links, straight away.



Or would you rather all this was left to fester and just wait for the next accident and loss of life. Bearing in mind that Nimrod was one of the next ones due to previous failure to address the problem.